|
Like my name suggests sadly im at work and dont have the time to read through all 157 pages here so forgive me if this has been said before. Im a gold level toss on NA which isnt high at all but what I pride myself on with this game is understanding the way that its played and watching the ups and downs of the metagame. I think that is really where the problem lies with this.
For the last two years there has been an abundance of Terran on the ladders and I myself, up until recently, have had 7 out of 10 games against Terran. I believe this has caused the P to get creative with timings, builds, compositions and all around just focus on figuring out the metagame much faster as of late. There has been a massive stagnation in the terran play with nothing super creative in the way that the race is played to come to the surface.
Now im not talking about BOs specifically but just mostly compostion in late game and the way that T moves and harrass' in the early to midgame. You cant let a Toss macro up to a 200/200 deathball and not expect to get rolled when he is reinforcing at the front, as Merz stated and was quoted by OP, he is going to be able to macro during the engagement while you must focus on micro.
I dont have specific help because I am what I am. Im not a pro, I dont have a history with RTS's, but what i do have is an absolute love afair with this game and absorb everything I can. Most Terrans at any level probably have gotten fed up with losing and are either leaving or switching races. Most people wont think outside the box and try to jump the train on the current metagame, its stagnating the matchup and the community in general. One of the reasons MKP is so hot right now is because he plays so surprisingly, we saw that this past weekend with his crazy thor/marine/hellion/medivac play against dongraegu. EVERYONE who watched that had their mind blown when he won. It was a crazy build and a crazy idea but there is so much that people can do with these races but for whatever reason no one wants to try. 1 yr ago no one would have thought Protoss would be going air with any build other than a forge expand in PvZ, but as some people are starting to see going for pheonix play in the other matchups is a very viable strategy if played correctly. As an example stargate openings versus anything other than straight barracks play is very effective and will outright kill a 1/1/1ing T. It kills robo play in PvP.
Take it for what you like but its just my humble opinion on the state of the game and community.
|
On March 28 2012 19:25 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 03:23 petro1987 wrote:
BigJ mentioned that the average points is almost the same for every race and that is an indication that every race is equally active in the ladder. That's not necessarily true. The bonus pool plays a big role in this situation. You can have 200 points having played 1000 games and having played 30 games. We would only know that for sure if sc2ranks had "average number of games per race" data.
This is right, though I think the only way to somehow work based upon data is to assume that the data we get is somewhat representative. But for the sake of the argument, let's say for a moment that the "odd" case is true, that Terrans play less, but still have somewhat similar points on average with the other races: This can only happen, if Terrans make more points per game, which means that they are either playing a lot vs "favored" opponents (getting more points for winning, less points for losing) or they simply have very high win/lose ratios. In any case, Terrans are not lurking around because they do badly. Furthermore, sc2ranks gives you the absolute games won per race and though I'm too lazy to calculate them through exactly, they seem to correspond very well with the percentages of players per race. There are also "odd" cases here that could be deceiving for the overall games that Terrans play, as we can only see the won games, but they come down to Terran playing very few games but having high winrates (so the games overall are few) and Terran having low winrates with a lot of games. Both of those are not consistent with: "Placed Terrans play less games per season because they don't do well". Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 03:02 slane04 wrote:
Since we are mainly talking about foreign Terrans, I don't think that looking at global race distributions is all that helpful. We all know Korean Terrans are doing fine. Aggregating with Korean stats masks the trend occuring in Europe and the Americas. Let's look at Europe and America from 1.2 to 1.4.2 then
America
Terran
Masters: 30.2 --> 28.8 = -1.4
Diamond: 28.0 --> 24.9 = -3.1
Platinum: 30.2 --> 24.3 = -5.9
Gold: 30.9 --> 26.8 = -4.1
Silver: 31.6 --> 30.2 = -1.4
Europe
Terran
Masters: 29.8 --> 28.3 = -1.5
Diamond: 27.7 --> 25.8 = -1.9
Platinum: 30.4 --> 24.9 = -5.5
Gold: 32.3 --> 26.7 = -5.6
Silver: 34.0 --> 30.9 = -3.1
Still I want to point out, that there is a drop out in Protoss players as well, especially at the levels below Diamond, for those servers. Again it's not as high as Terrans drop out, but still around 1-3 percent. (also Randoms are decreasing) With the observation, that Zergs are growing (for some reason), we can now roughly approximate a "Terran specific" drop out, which should be 1-3percent (so somewhat according to the random/protoss drop outs; to do it right we would have to weight the exact Protoss drop rate with the amounts of Protoss players and do the same for randoms, then use a model that combines those to numbers... the result should be like 80% of the Protoss drop out, so still in the magnitude of 1-3%) Based upon this, the result should mostly show a big drop out at Gold/Platinum and a small drop out at Masters (where Protoss don't drop out that much) that is because of "Terran reasons" and not because of Zerg growth. (though of course there are odd cases, when for example only Protoss switch to Zerg and Zergs grow overall while Terrans only drop out and therefore there is no "Zerg effect" that affects Terran. But to make this a somewhat databased discussion, we should assume that we are not in the most extreme cases) Also on another note, the Korean Server holds roughly 10% of all the players. As the global charts are weighted, the Korean trends should not influence the global trends too much, especially as they don't point in the opposite direction. (note here, that you did 1.2.0-->1.4.2 for America/Europe, I did 1.3.0-->1.4.2 globally; your data is more dramatic, because it is over a bigger timeframe) In conclusion the questions those results produce are: Why do Terrans drop in such big numbers in Gold/Platinum and why is it generally the least played race? Why is Zerg increasing? And related to that: Will those trends continue?
Apologies about the 1.2 vs. 1.3 thing, only realised the mistake after posting. Didn't mean to mislead anyone. And thanks for refining the proportion of Terrans dropping out for racial reasons.
Your concluding questions are all good ones. An answer could be the skill jump required to play at the platinum level. However, this isn't necessarily the case. If one race is dramatically more fun than another, this could affect race distribution. Fun is entirely subjective, but Zerg is different enough than Terran and Protoss that this might be the case. However, why would Terran and some Protoss suddenly decide that Zerg is more fun at a specific playing level? This doesn't make sense. Most alternative reasons can usually be discarded for this reason. There are simply very few factors that will single out one race at one level of play.
Leagues are directly proportional to skill, by definition. What other factors apply specifically to a league. This is where I'd like the community to mash brains.
|
Maybe seige tanks can play more like storms or fungals? Meaning maybe we should be able to target a circular area where it will hit or maybe a artillery type skill?...But I think then you wouldn't be able to split/stutter step effectively.. or better switch to P or Z. jk trololol
User was warned for this post
|
On March 28 2012 21:25 plouer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 18:49 Mongolbonjwa wrote:
Terran is the hardest race to play, the macro and micro is hardest. This is an undeniable fact.
Terran also has issues in design, in a way that makes specially a tvz very hard to deal with it, even more than against protos. Terran just lacks proper board control and tanks are not as good as they were in brood war. In order to win tvz against skilled zerg, terran has to rely on cute early mkp-like aggression special tactics. Same thing applies to tvp also, but tvp is easier match up just because board control is not as important against protos, just need to worry about your upgrades and getting as much bio as possible and some ghosts to get good emp's or vikings.
Also like I mentioned, tanks are inferior compared to brood war-tanks, it is one of the major reasons why tvp is currently in this state that bio is only viable option.
In heart of the swarm I really hope, that tanks will be viable unit again in tvp. Warhound and battlehellion sounds promising, but I am a bit skeptic about shredders, that how good they really are in zone control. what a joke!!!! Yes late game T is a joke!terran can reach 200 energy on their CC and lose 0 mineral. if a zerg loose a few second of an early injection , he lost 4*number of second in mining time If they have 200 energy then they are losing 4*(the amount of minerals MULES mine in their lifetime)and there is no need at all to move ur screen to macro while toss has to move back o his pylone for ever warp. which is clearly harder to do in a fight If their proxy pylon is not close to their army, they aren't doing it rightto use all these advantage terran can harrass with so many different unit like reaper helion banshee or drop.(even raven later but ok it's really unsuall and expensive). i read this post and i saw a lot of player who abused protoss with 1-1-1 for month and can't get anythings done now they triple orbital without any defense and cry 2 base all-in crush them. Its really hard to keep up with 2 base toss, thats why the 3rd orbital strat came about. As T its hard to hold a 2base P all-in regardless.i agree terran late game is a bit hard to play against deathball protoss( but a 200/200 bio army is half the cost of a zealot/collossus/templar/archon mix) (and it's soooooOOOO faster it's insanely hard to counter a drop when map is splitted.) It may be half the cost, but then why is it fair that Toss can remax a more expensive army faster?the real question is : what do terran offer for the early games ??? i keep reading they are mby OP in early and weak later. but the only things i read is nerf late game toss or up late game terran. if there is a nerf one day i really hope toss will buffed in early game. cause now it is close to impossible to won in the early game if the terran play just a little bit safe
|
I don't think the idea that Protoss is easy compared to Terran below the pro level in SC2 would exist if the same idea hadn't been repeated Ad Nauseam in Broodwar. Just like in SC2, in BW Terrans gave better than they got in tournaments. Instead, however, of making the natural observation that Terran players likely had a small advantage, Terran forumers came up with the droll idea that Terran was only the strongest when superhuman APM could be employed. This let Terran players complain about balance without statistical repercussion; any win by a Terran player wasn't really a Terran winning. A God won in Terran form, and no conclusions about non-God Terran players could be made.
As you would expect, BW Terrans never satisfactorily explained what about their race took so much more skill. All they did was make ignorant comments about "a-moving," ignoring, for example, the tremendous disparity in work that clearing out Vulture minefields took in comparison to setting them.
If Terran players actually do believe Protoss is easier to play below a pro level, they need to make a stronger case than is present in this thread. For example, in a normal TvP Midgame battle, a Protoss will have Zealots and Sentry on one hotkey, Stalkers on a second, and High Templars on third. Terran will have MMM on one hotkey, and Ghosts on a second. Please explain why it takes so much more skill to handle the Terran army. Please explain why Terran has to pay more attention to stutter stepping, than the Protoss player does to pulling back his zealots into the range of his stalkers, and pulling back his stalkers back so his Templar can storm. And please, please explain why Stutter Stepping is considered some holy grail of difficulty when it is mechanical action which can be practiced and mastered against an AI (because it requires minimal decision making).
Actually comparing the skill required to play two races would be incredibly difficult. Every action taken by one race demands a reaction by the other, and a-moving charge lots is only possible when you've played out the game to your advantage and are delivering the killing blow. Instead, this thread harbors vague complaints and no strict analysis.
|
On March 29 2012 02:52 -_- wrote:
I don't think the idea that Protoss is easy compared to Terran below the pro level in SC2 would exist if the same idea hadn't been repeated Ad Nauseam in Broodwar. Just like in SC2, in BW Terrans gave better than they got in tournaments. Instead, however, of making the natural observation that Terran players likely had a small advantage, Terran forumers came up with the droll idea that Terran was only the strongest when superhuman APM could be employed. This let Terran players complain about balance without statistical repercussion; any win by a Terran player wasn't really a Terran winning. A God won in Terran form, and no conclusions about non-God Terran players could be made.
As you would expect, BW Terrans never satisfactorily explained what about their race took so much more skill. All they did was make ignorant comments about "a-moving," ignoring, for example, the tremendous disparity in work that clearing out Vulture minefields took in comparison to setting them.
If Terran players actually do believe Protoss is easier to play below a pro level, they need to make a stronger case than is present in this thread. For example, in a normal TvP Midgame battle, a Protoss will have Zealots and Sentry on one hotkey, Stalkers on a second, and High Templars on third. Terran will have MMM on one hotkey, and Ghosts on a second. Please explain why it takes so much more skill to handle the Terran army. Please explain why Terran has to pay more attention to stutter stepping, than the Protoss player does to pulling back his zealots into the range of his stalkers, and pulling back his stalkers back so his Templar can storm. And please, please explain why Stutter Stepping is considered some holy grail of difficulty when it is mechanical action which can be practiced and mastered against an AI (because it requires minimal decision making).
Actually comparing the skill required to play two races would be incredibly difficult. Every action taken by one race demands a reaction by the other, and a-moving charge lots is only possible when you've played out the game to your advantage and are delivering the killing blow. Instead, this thread harbors vague complaints and no strict analysis.
Why should we explain all that? Was anyone just talking about this? I think not. The current discussion regards the puzzle of league populations, and I don't see how you contribute to this. Instead, this looks like another derailing post because you'll find that you yourself were talking about these things several tens of pages back in this thread and you got several replies to your questions then. Now, do you have a solution to why Terran and Random populations in gold/platinum take such heavy hits, while Z surges in all top leagues (least in Master, but still more than Protoss increases in master).
Another conclusion that can be made is that a small number of protoss are getting promoted into master, but as the number is very small compared to the number of Protoss that disappear from Diamond, some must switch races to Z.
|
On March 29 2012 03:01 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 02:52 -_- wrote:
I don't think the idea that Protoss is easy compared to Terran below the pro level in SC2 would exist if the same idea hadn't been repeated Ad Nauseam in Broodwar. Just like in SC2, in BW Terrans gave better than they got in tournaments. Instead, however, of making the natural observation that Terran players likely had a small advantage, Terran forumers came up with the droll idea that Terran was only the strongest when superhuman APM could be employed. This let Terran players complain about balance without statistical repercussion; any win by a Terran player wasn't really a Terran winning. A God won in Terran form, and no conclusions about non-God Terran players could be made.
As you would expect, BW Terrans never satisfactorily explained what about their race took so much more skill. All they did was make ignorant comments about "a-moving," ignoring, for example, the tremendous disparity in work that clearing out Vulture minefields took in comparison to setting them.
If Terran players actually do believe Protoss is easier to play below a pro level, they need to make a stronger case than is present in this thread. For example, in a normal TvP Midgame battle, a Protoss will have Zealots and Sentry on one hotkey, Stalkers on a second, and High Templars on third. Terran will have MMM on one hotkey, and Ghosts on a second. Please explain why it takes so much more skill to handle the Terran army. Please explain why Terran has to pay more attention to stutter stepping, than the Protoss player does to pulling back his zealots into the range of his stalkers, and pulling back his stalkers back so his Templar can storm. And please, please explain why Stutter Stepping is considered some holy grail of difficulty when it is mechanical action which can be practiced and mastered against an AI (because it requires minimal decision making).
Actually comparing the skill required to play two races would be incredibly difficult. Every action taken by one race demands a reaction by the other, and a-moving charge lots is only possible when you've played out the game to your advantage and are delivering the killing blow. Instead, this thread harbors vague complaints and no strict analysis. Why should we explain all that? Was anyone just talking about this? I think not. The current discussion regards the puzzle of league populations, and I don't see how you contribute to this. Instead, this looks like another derailing post because you'll find that you yourself were talking about these things several tens of pages back in this thread and you got several replies to your questions then. Now, do you have a solution to why Terran and Random populations in gold/platinum take such heavy hits, while Z surges in all top leagues (least in Master, but still more than Protoss increases in master). Another conclusion that can be made is that a small number of protoss are getting promoted into master, but as the number is very small compared to the number of Protoss that disappear from Diamond, some must switch races to Z.
Of course people were talking about whether Terran were too difficult below the pro level. The primary solution proposed for the "puzzle of league populations" has been "Terran is too hard." If you won't take my word for it, here are posts from pages 156 and 157 of this thread.
On March 28 2012 10:08 SupLilSon wrote:
I don't get you. You wan't specific reasons/answers as to why Terran is losing players but you refuse to listen to the TERRANS who are spoon feeding you the answers. Look at the OP, look at the surveys. TvT is the easiest matchup for Terrans. PvT is the easiest matchup for Protoss. ZvT is the easiest matchup for Zergs. No one posting here is in GSL so don't even mention it. Honestly, just open your eyes and try reading other people's posts and you'll see that this thread is littered with Terrans giving their personal testimonies on why they don't ladder anymore. I really don't understand why you are trying to propose reasons for Terrans leaving, the reason should be plain and obvious by now.
On March 28 2012 13:41 YyapSsap wrote:
I think almost all T units require some sort of micro that can dramatically increase their efficiency. Kiting, positioning, stutter stepping, move shooting, spreading etc. But when you look at the P units (minus blink stalkers and possibly sentries), they are just so limited in ways one could micro them that the difference between average micro to "just micro the hell out of it anyway" is not as pronounce as a T would showcase (e.g think MKP control vs the rest).
So Id think once you reach a certain level, your game sense and decision making skills would be the deciding factor of differentiating against other P players (and hence improving is alot harder unless time is put in). Unlike the T where your benchmark is setup by MKP where some of the stuff he does is just beyond what most T players can do mechanically. Another reason why foreigner players just cant stand shoulder to shoulder with korean Ts.
It would be nice for the P to have these micro-able units that reward players who do take advantage of it hence why we have the endless reaver/colossus debate. The shuttle/reaver micro, carrier micro, corsair micro, caster micro (although this doesn't work in SC2 due to smartcast) etc all made P exciting to watch. Just wished that was the case for SC2.
On March 28 2012 18:49 Mongolbonjwa wrote:
Terran is the hardest race to play, the macro and micro is hardest. This is an undeniable fact.
Terran also has issues in design, in a way that makes specially a tvz very hard to deal with it, even more than against protos. Terran just lacks proper board control and tanks are not as good as they were in brood war. In order to win tvz against skilled zerg, terran has to rely on cute early mkp-like aggression special tactics. Same thing applies to tvp also, but tvp is easier match up just because board control is not as important against protos, just need to worry about your upgrades and getting as much bio as possible and some ghosts to get good emp's or vikings.
Also like I mentioned, tanks are inferior compared to brood war-tanks, it is one of the major reasons why tvp is currently in this state that bio is only viable option.
In heart of the swarm I really hope, that tanks will be viable unit again in tvp. Warhound and battlehellion sounds promising, but I am a bit skeptic about shredders, that how good they really are in zone control.
|
On March 29 2012 02:52 -_- wrote:
I don't think the idea that Protoss is easy compared to Terran below the pro level in SC2 would exist if the same idea hadn't been repeated Ad Nauseam in Broodwar. Just like in SC2, in BW Terrans gave better than they got in tournaments. Instead, however, of making the natural observation that Terran players likely had a small advantage, Terran forumers came up with the droll idea that Terran was only the strongest when superhuman APM could be employed. This let Terran players complain about balance without statistical repercussion; any win by a Terran player wasn't really a Terran winning. A God won in Terran form, and no conclusions about non-God Terran players could be made.
As you would expect, BW Terrans never satisfactorily explained what about their race took so much more skill. All they did was make ignorant comments about "a-moving," ignoring, for example, the tremendous disparity in work that clearing out Vulture minefields took in comparison to setting them.
If Terran players actually do believe Protoss is easier to play below a pro level, they need to make a stronger case than is present in this thread. For example, in a normal TvP Midgame battle, a Protoss will have Zealots and Sentry on one hotkey, Stalkers on a second, and High Templars on third. Terran will have MMM on one hotkey, and Ghosts on a second. Please explain why it takes so much more skill to handle the Terran army. Please explain why Terran has to pay more attention to stutter stepping, than the Protoss player does to pulling back his zealots into the range of his stalkers, and pulling back his stalkers back so his Templar can storm. And please, please explain why Stutter Stepping is considered some holy grail of difficulty when it is mechanical action which can be practiced and mastered against an AI (because it requires minimal decision making).
Actually comparing the skill required to play two races would be incredibly difficult. Every action taken by one race demands a reaction by the other, and a-moving charge lots is only possible when you've played out the game to your advantage and are delivering the killing blow. Instead, this thread harbors vague complaints and no strict analysis.
You must play Protoss.
I'm not sure where the whole BW and SC2 correlation comes in, but I don't think in this context it doesn't make sense. Also while there have been arguments based on the GM/High Masters level, I think we have established a consensus that we are mainly talking about lower level play. But I can make the argument that to a lower level players that someone like MKP is a god, and you have to play like MKP in lower levels to achieve a win? Is that the case and should it be? (And why is MKP our only point of reference, if the argument is correct shouldn't all the other godly Terrans have just as much success? Are we seeing this?)
Do you really believe that pulling zealots back is harder or requires the same skill as stutter stepping? I don't even know what to say to you if you do... So in this engagement the terran would spread his army to avoid storms, have ghosts up front and ready to snipe/emp, storms go down T must select groups and walk them out of storms all while stutter stepping back against chargelots all while keeping a good surface area. Also the situation you described sounds off, if toss has colossi it makes this situation harder because now you have to control your vikings. Some people group them with armies, but sometimes you have to control them separately to be effective, not to mention tanks and target firing. What does the protoss have to do? FF and storm, maybe run back colossi? In my experience of playing T, whenever I offraced P and almost literally had to just A move, and just land some good FF and storms.. it felt boring. But to me blink micro was fun!..yet easy
Please let me know the micro intensity of Toss in this engagement.
|
On March 29 2012 03:08 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 03:01 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 29 2012 02:52 -_- wrote:
I don't think the idea that Protoss is easy compared to Terran below the pro level in SC2 would exist if the same idea hadn't been repeated Ad Nauseam in Broodwar. Just like in SC2, in BW Terrans gave better than they got in tournaments. Instead, however, of making the natural observation that Terran players likely had a small advantage, Terran forumers came up with the droll idea that Terran was only the strongest when superhuman APM could be employed. This let Terran players complain about balance without statistical repercussion; any win by a Terran player wasn't really a Terran winning. A God won in Terran form, and no conclusions about non-God Terran players could be made.
As you would expect, BW Terrans never satisfactorily explained what about their race took so much more skill. All they did was make ignorant comments about "a-moving," ignoring, for example, the tremendous disparity in work that clearing out Vulture minefields took in comparison to setting them.
If Terran players actually do believe Protoss is easier to play below a pro level, they need to make a stronger case than is present in this thread. For example, in a normal TvP Midgame battle, a Protoss will have Zealots and Sentry on one hotkey, Stalkers on a second, and High Templars on third. Terran will have MMM on one hotkey, and Ghosts on a second. Please explain why it takes so much more skill to handle the Terran army. Please explain why Terran has to pay more attention to stutter stepping, than the Protoss player does to pulling back his zealots into the range of his stalkers, and pulling back his stalkers back so his Templar can storm. And please, please explain why Stutter Stepping is considered some holy grail of difficulty when it is mechanical action which can be practiced and mastered against an AI (because it requires minimal decision making).
Actually comparing the skill required to play two races would be incredibly difficult. Every action taken by one race demands a reaction by the other, and a-moving charge lots is only possible when you've played out the game to your advantage and are delivering the killing blow. Instead, this thread harbors vague complaints and no strict analysis. Why should we explain all that? Was anyone just talking about this? I think not. The current discussion regards the puzzle of league populations, and I don't see how you contribute to this. Instead, this looks like another derailing post because you'll find that you yourself were talking about these things several tens of pages back in this thread and you got several replies to your questions then. Now, do you have a solution to why Terran and Random populations in gold/platinum take such heavy hits, while Z surges in all top leagues (least in Master, but still more than Protoss increases in master). Another conclusion that can be made is that a small number of protoss are getting promoted into master, but as the number is very small compared to the number of Protoss that disappear from Diamond, some must switch races to Z. Of course people were talking about whether Terran were too difficult below the pro level. The primary solution proposed for the "puzzle of league populations" has been "Terran is too hard." If you won't take my word for it, here are posts from pages 156 and 157 of this thread. Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 10:08 SupLilSon wrote:
I don't get you. You wan't specific reasons/answers as to why Terran is losing players but you refuse to listen to the TERRANS who are spoon feeding you the answers. Look at the OP, look at the surveys. TvT is the easiest matchup for Terrans. PvT is the easiest matchup for Protoss. ZvT is the easiest matchup for Zergs. No one posting here is in GSL so don't even mention it. Honestly, just open your eyes and try reading other people's posts and you'll see that this thread is littered with Terrans giving their personal testimonies on why they don't ladder anymore. I really don't understand why you are trying to propose reasons for Terrans leaving, the reason should be plain and obvious by now. Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 13:41 YyapSsap wrote:
I think almost all T units require some sort of micro that can dramatically increase their efficiency. Kiting, positioning, stutter stepping, move shooting, spreading etc. But when you look at the P units (minus blink stalkers and possibly sentries), they are just so limited in ways one could micro them that the difference between average micro to "just micro the hell out of it anyway" is not as pronounce as a T would showcase (e.g think MKP control vs the rest).
So Id think once you reach a certain level, your game sense and decision making skills would be the deciding factor of differentiating against other P players (and hence improving is alot harder unless time is put in). Unlike the T where your benchmark is setup by MKP where some of the stuff he does is just beyond what most T players can do mechanically. Another reason why foreigner players just cant stand shoulder to shoulder with korean Ts.
It would be nice for the P to have these micro-able units that reward players who do take advantage of it hence why we have the endless reaver/colossus debate. The shuttle/reaver micro, carrier micro, corsair micro, caster micro (although this doesn't work in SC2 due to smartcast) etc all made P exciting to watch. Just wished that was the case for SC2. Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 18:49 Mongolbonjwa wrote:
Terran is the hardest race to play, the macro and micro is hardest. This is an undeniable fact.
Terran also has issues in design, in a way that makes specially a tvz very hard to deal with it, even more than against protos. Terran just lacks proper board control and tanks are not as good as they were in brood war. In order to win tvz against skilled zerg, terran has to rely on cute early mkp-like aggression special tactics. Same thing applies to tvp also, but tvp is easier match up just because board control is not as important against protos, just need to worry about your upgrades and getting as much bio as possible and some ghosts to get good emp's or vikings.
Also like I mentioned, tanks are inferior compared to brood war-tanks, it is one of the major reasons why tvp is currently in this state that bio is only viable option.
In heart of the swarm I really hope, that tanks will be viable unit again in tvp. Warhound and battlehellion sounds promising, but I am a bit skeptic about shredders, that how good they really are in zone control.
Next time, please spoiler all of that. Read the posts on this page, the questions being asked are not compliant with the questions you ask about terran micro difficulty. The best we can do is accept people's perceived frustration at the micro needed to win against P and Z, and work from this data. Perhaps some corroborating details can be found.
I repeat that you already received responses to your derailing questions and they do not need to be repeated.
Here's another hypothesis, could we link the popularity of Zerg to the popularity of Idra and Stephano? Idra has been around for a long time, and there is a lot of mimicking of his style (it was considered THE zerg style for a very long time), now Stephano's style is most popular, with once again a lot of people watching his stream and mimicking it. Day9 has done dailies on both styles, making it easy to pick up. Perhaps people are flocking towards an easy to learn popular style that has high success rates?
This can be tested in two ways: switching should be linked to the popularity of these players, with a marked increase in switching as Stephano enters the field. Secondly, regions where these players aren't as popular (presumably), such as Korea, China, Taiwan, Brazil should have less switching to Zerg. I'll be checking this myself, but I'd be glad if others checked it as well.
|
On March 29 2012 03:01 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 02:52 -_- wrote:
I don't think the idea that Protoss is easy compared to Terran below the pro level in SC2 would exist if the same idea hadn't been repeated Ad Nauseam in Broodwar. Just like in SC2, in BW Terrans gave better than they got in tournaments. Instead, however, of making the natural observation that Terran players likely had a small advantage, Terran forumers came up with the droll idea that Terran was only the strongest when superhuman APM could be employed. This let Terran players complain about balance without statistical repercussion; any win by a Terran player wasn't really a Terran winning. A God won in Terran form, and no conclusions about non-God Terran players could be made.
As you would expect, BW Terrans never satisfactorily explained what about their race took so much more skill. All they did was make ignorant comments about "a-moving," ignoring, for example, the tremendous disparity in work that clearing out Vulture minefields took in comparison to setting them.
If Terran players actually do believe Protoss is easier to play below a pro level, they need to make a stronger case than is present in this thread. For example, in a normal TvP Midgame battle, a Protoss will have Zealots and Sentry on one hotkey, Stalkers on a second, and High Templars on third. Terran will have MMM on one hotkey, and Ghosts on a second. Please explain why it takes so much more skill to handle the Terran army. Please explain why Terran has to pay more attention to stutter stepping, than the Protoss player does to pulling back his zealots into the range of his stalkers, and pulling back his stalkers back so his Templar can storm. And please, please explain why Stutter Stepping is considered some holy grail of difficulty when it is mechanical action which can be practiced and mastered against an AI (because it requires minimal decision making).
Actually comparing the skill required to play two races would be incredibly difficult. Every action taken by one race demands a reaction by the other, and a-moving charge lots is only possible when you've played out the game to your advantage and are delivering the killing blow. Instead, this thread harbors vague complaints and no strict analysis. Why should we explain all that? Was anyone just talking about this? I think not. The current discussion regards the puzzle of league populations, and I don't see how you contribute to this. Instead, this looks like another derailing post because you'll find that you yourself were talking about these things several tens of pages back in this thread and you got several replies to your questions then. Now, do you have a solution to why Terran and Random populations in gold/platinum take such heavy hits, while Z surges in all top leagues (least in Master, but still more than Protoss increases in master). Another conclusion that can be made is that a small number of protoss are getting promoted into master, but as the number is very small compared to the number of Protoss that disappear from Diamond, some must switch races to Z.
not to mention all this already has been explained...
blinkstalker vs. vikings
ghosts vs. HT
sentries (forcefield/guardianshield) vs. medivac (evacuate trapped units)
are fair microbattles imo, at least comparably difficult for terran and protoss...
BUT
Zealot / Archon / Colossus vs. MM
is attackmove vs constant kiting, retreating overeager zealots is nothing compared to the micro you have to invest into the little glasscannons.
|
On March 29 2012 02:52 -_- wrote:
I don't think the idea that Protoss is easy compared to Terran below the pro level in SC2 would exist if the same idea hadn't been repeated Ad Nauseam in Broodwar. Just like in SC2, in BW Terrans gave better than they got in tournaments. Instead, however, of making the natural observation that Terran players likely had a small advantage, Terran forumers came up with the droll idea that Terran was only the strongest when superhuman APM could be employed. This let Terran players complain about balance without statistical repercussion; any win by a Terran player wasn't really a Terran winning. A God won in Terran form, and no conclusions about non-God Terran players could be made.
As you would expect, BW Terrans never satisfactorily explained what about their race took so much more skill. All they did was make ignorant comments about "a-moving," ignoring, for example, the tremendous disparity in work that clearing out Vulture minefields took in comparison to setting them.
If Terran players actually do believe Protoss is easier to play below a pro level, they need to make a stronger case than is present in this thread. For example, in a normal TvP Midgame battle, a Protoss will have Zealots and Sentry on one hotkey, Stalkers on a second, and High Templars on third. Terran will have MMM on one hotkey, and Ghosts on a second. Please explain why it takes so much more skill to handle the Terran army. Please explain why Terran has to pay more attention to stutter stepping, than the Protoss player does to pulling back his zealots into the range of his stalkers, and pulling back his stalkers back so his Templar can storm. And please, please explain why Stutter Stepping is considered some holy grail of difficulty when it is mechanical action which can be practiced and mastered against an AI (because it requires minimal decision making).
Actually comparing the skill required to play two races would be incredibly difficult. Every action taken by one race demands a reaction by the other, and a-moving charge lots is only possible when you've played out the game to your advantage and are delivering the killing blow. Instead, this thread harbors vague complaints and no strict analysis.
It's funny you compare the situation to BW. Nobody even bothers to argue that protoss isn't significantly easier than terran at a lower level.
Because stutter step has to be done constantly while doing all other tasks. While you're trying to run out of storms, you'll still have to stutter step. While you're controlling vikings, you'll still have to stutter step. While you're EMPing, you'll still have to stutter step. If you ignore/oversee a storm, you'll lose the game outright. I just threw away a 50 supply advantage to 3 storms in a TvP when I got stormed in a choke. I could have avoided it, but my opponent was doing nowhere near half of what I was doing. It was just zealots in front, press attack (no sentries after the first trade obviously) and then just storm storm shit. If a storm hits well, every advantage terran could have gotten earlier in the game is nullified and you're now significantly ahead.
Terran is just broken currently. 95 % of terran lategame wins appear to be the result of an early advantage snowballing. We've seen mech do quite well recently, but only when the initial blueflames roast a ton of shit. The totally obvious sign of terran having no lategame is that both Z and P just try to turtle as much as they can. Races should not be equal in all regards, but terran winning more or less exclusively from odd all ins or getting ahead because protoss/zerg fears said all ins is just sad. You can keep denying it as much as you want, as Blizzard probably won't be able to do jack shit about it until HotS hits and mech is put back on the table.
|
I think all the terrans have vanished from ladder but have rejoined in this thread 
|
On March 29 2012 02:52 -_- wrote:
I don't think the idea that Protoss is easy compared to Terran below the pro level in SC2 would exist if the same idea hadn't been repeated Ad Nauseam in Broodwar. Just like in SC2, in BW Terrans gave better than they got in tournaments. Instead, however, of making the natural observation that Terran players likely had a small advantage, Terran forumers came up with the droll idea that Terran was only the strongest when superhuman APM could be employed. This let Terran players complain about balance without statistical repercussion; any win by a Terran player wasn't really a Terran winning. A God won in Terran form, and no conclusions about non-God Terran players could be made.
As you would expect, BW Terrans never satisfactorily explained what about their race took so much more skill. All they did was make ignorant comments about "a-moving," ignoring, for example, the tremendous disparity in work that clearing out Vulture minefields took in comparison to setting them.
If Terran players actually do believe Protoss is easier to play below a pro level, they need to make a stronger case than is present in this thread. For example, in a normal TvP Midgame battle, a Protoss will have Zealots and Sentry on one hotkey, Stalkers on a second, and High Templars on third. Terran will have MMM on one hotkey, and Ghosts on a second. Please explain why it takes so much more skill to handle the Terran army. Please explain why Terran has to pay more attention to stutter stepping, than the Protoss player does to pulling back his zealots into the range of his stalkers, and pulling back his stalkers back so his Templar can storm. And please, please explain why Stutter Stepping is considered some holy grail of difficulty when it is mechanical action which can be practiced and mastered against an AI (because it requires minimal decision making).
Actually comparing the skill required to play two races would be incredibly difficult. Every action taken by one race demands a reaction by the other, and a-moving charge lots is only possible when you've played out the game to your advantage and are delivering the killing blow. Instead, this thread harbors vague complaints and no strict analysis.
The idea that Protoss is easier than Terran below pro level in BW is pretty much a consensus. It's not like it was repeated Ad Nausem just to see if it would eventually become true. I find it quite funny that you try to deny it and yet almost every foreigner in the BW scene were either Zerg or Protoss. You think this is all a coincidence, right? They all chose Zerg or Protoss because clearly Terran was imba and they had self respect, right? I don't even know how can someone make sense out of this. So Terran is imba but everyone chooses Zerg or Protoss? Give me a break.
PS: Funny how the same thing happened in SC2. The majority of the foreign scene chose Zerg or Protoss and Terran is obviously OP.
|
Nerf Collosus, Marines, Broodlords
Buff Tanks, Carriers, BattleCriusers
That is balance
|
On March 29 2012 02:52 -_- wrote:
I don't think the idea that Protoss is easy compared to Terran below the pro level in SC2 would exist if the same idea hadn't been repeated Ad Nauseam in Broodwar. Just like in SC2, in BW Terrans gave better than they got in tournaments. Instead, however, of making the natural observation that Terran players likely had a small advantage, Terran forumers came up with the droll idea that Terran was only the strongest when superhuman APM could be employed. This let Terran players complain about balance without statistical repercussion; any win by a Terran player wasn't really a Terran winning. A God won in Terran form, and no conclusions about non-God Terran players could be made.
As you would expect, BW Terrans never satisfactorily explained what about their race took so much more skill. All they did was make ignorant comments about "a-moving," ignoring, for example, the tremendous disparity in work that clearing out Vulture minefields took in comparison to setting them.
If Terran players actually do believe Protoss is easier to play below a pro level, they need to make a stronger case than is present in this thread. For example, in a normal TvP Midgame battle, a Protoss will have Zealots and Sentry on one hotkey, Stalkers on a second, and High Templars on third. Terran will have MMM on one hotkey, and Ghosts on a second. Please explain why it takes so much more skill to handle the Terran army. Please explain why Terran has to pay more attention to stutter stepping, than the Protoss player does to pulling back his zealots into the range of his stalkers, and pulling back his stalkers back so his Templar can storm. And please, please explain why Stutter Stepping is considered some holy grail of difficulty when it is mechanical action which can be practiced and mastered against an AI (because it requires minimal decision making).
Actually comparing the skill required to play two races would be incredibly difficult. Every action taken by one race demands a reaction by the other, and a-moving charge lots is only possible when you've played out the game to your advantage and are delivering the killing blow. Instead, this thread harbors vague complaints and no strict analysis.
There are few things as annoying as someone explaining how to do something without ever actually having done it. Case in-point here: stutter stepping, while emping, while macroing, while preventing stalkers from targeting your vikings (which is a rather easy skill on the toss side consisting solely of shift clicking). I don't know whether TvP is truly imbalanced but claiming protoss has to exert the same control as a terran lategame is simply wrong. What is so demoralizing and frustrating about this control battle is that if you pull it off poorly you are dead, but if you pull it off well and trade efficiently the warp-in of zealots overruns your force and you are now down atleast a base while you are furiously qeueing units at your rax; to address your point about demonstrating why terran is harder than protoss, terran actually has to focus on their macro during the battle while protoss simply focuses on it after the battle. Finally, the entire game feels out of your control if you play standard bio where the game is dictated minute one by the protoss, unlike TvT and TvZ where the game has distinct periods of advantage for both players. The only time it feels as if you have any control of the game is when the toss is not ready for your first drop and it does serious damage but that is more rare every day.
If I was wrong and you have actually played Terran at all I would gladly play a PvT with you, maybe you could show me a thing or two about it?
|
I've received enough responses that I can safely ignore Ghanburighan's claim that the issue I discussed was one which nobody was talking about or interested in.
Unfortunately, I think they show quite a bit of ignorance about what decisions a Protoss player has to make, and what micro a Protoss player has to execute during a battle. But, I'm a Protoss player, so perhaps I'm ignorant of exactly how difficult it is for a Terran?
So, I'll issue a challenge. If you're a low masters player or below, post your last 5 losses to Protoss in a replay pack. I, and other forum goers will go over them. Instead of describing how easy it for Protoss at lower levels, we'll all be able to see with our own eyes what both players did during the battle and what led up to it.
|
On March 29 2012 04:22 -_- wrote:
I've received enough responses that I can safely ignore Ghanburighan's claim that the issue I discussed was one which nobody was talking about or interested in.
Unfortunately, I think they show quite a bit of ignorance about what decisions a Protoss player has to make, and what micro a Protoss player has to execute during a battle. But, I'm a Protoss player, so perhaps I'm ignorant of exactly how difficult it is for a Terran?
So, I'll issue a challenge. If you're a low masters player or below, post your last 5 losses to Protoss in a replay pack. I, and other forum goers will go over them. Instead of describing how easy it for Protoss at lower levels, we'll all be able to see with our own eyes what both players did during the battle and what led up to it.
Yes you are most likely being ignorant, have you played Terran at all somewhat consistently? I would assume not. And most of the responses you got are from the fact that you are implying that T micro is at the same level as P micro, yet we asked you what micro intensive things are you doing in the hypothetical engagement and got no answer. I have a feeling while when I described the micro involved with T I stared at the screen for a bit to make sure I didnt leave anything out, while you will be staring at the screen to figure out something to write.
How about you post up 5 replays of you beating Terran and we can all talk about how you won with so many mistakes or gaps in your play? Or maybe you playing T and demonstrating how easy stutter step is? I think that might be fun.
|
On March 29 2012 04:22 -_- wrote:
I've received enough responses that I can safely ignore Ghanburighan's claim that the issue I discussed was one which nobody was talking about or interested in.
Unfortunately, I think they show quite a bit of ignorance about what decisions a Protoss player has to make, and what micro a Protoss player has to execute during a battle. But, I'm a Protoss player, so perhaps I'm ignorant of exactly how difficult it is for a Terran?
So, I'll issue a challenge. If you're a low masters player or below, post your last 5 losses to Protoss in a replay pack. I, and other forum goers will go over them. Instead of describing how easy it for Protoss at lower levels, we'll all be able to see with our own eyes what both players did during the battle and what led up to it.
No one is suggesting that protoss is easy, simply that terran is struggling in terms of population at the platinum/diamond level. We are citing the disparity in level of play at this level as a potential major factor. We are also struggling to come up with alternative explanations. My challenge was for the community to come up with alternatives. Your challenge doesn't make sense and kinda misses the point of the thread at this juncture in the discussion. No one is suggesting that platinum/diamond terrans don't make mistakes that should be corrected. No one is suggesting that Terran can't win. We are proposing that there is a sharp learning curve at the platinum level that is not matched by the other races.
|
On March 29 2012 04:47 slane04 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 04:22 -_- wrote:
I've received enough responses that I can safely ignore Ghanburighan's claim that the issue I discussed was one which nobody was talking about or interested in.
Unfortunately, I think they show quite a bit of ignorance about what decisions a Protoss player has to make, and what micro a Protoss player has to execute during a battle. But, I'm a Protoss player, so perhaps I'm ignorant of exactly how difficult it is for a Terran?
So, I'll issue a challenge. If you're a low masters player or below, post your last 5 losses to Protoss in a replay pack. I, and other forum goers will go over them. Instead of describing how easy it for Protoss at lower levels, we'll all be able to see with our own eyes what both players did during the battle and what led up to it. No one is suggesting that protoss is easy, simply that terran is struggling in terms of population at the platinum/diamond level. We are citing the disparity in level of play at this level as a potential major factor. We are also struggling to come up with alternative explanations. My challenge was for the community to come up with alternatives. Your challenge doesn't make sense and kinda misses the point of the thread at this juncture in the discussion. No one is suggesting that platinum/diamond terrans don't make mistakes that should be corrected. No one is suggesting that Terran can't win. We are proposing that there is a sharp learning curve at the platinum level that is not matched by the other races.
I understand your reservations, but I don't think you understand exactly what I meant. I'm not going to look at the replays and say "Terran didn't perfectly stutter step." But, for example, if a Protoss player's expands 5 minutes earlier and builds an army twice as big as the Terran's, the 'Terran Micro Learning Curve' wasn't to blame. T had a smaller economy and as a result could be A moved.
I think Terran players are using "I don't have MKP micro so I can't win" as an easy excuse. Replays would show if I'm right.
|
On March 29 2012 04:56 -_- wrote:
I think Terran players are using "I don't have MKP micro so I can't win" as an easy excuse. Replays would show if I'm right.
When it comes down to a big engagement that is why Terrans lose because there's way, way too much to do at once for all but the tip top percentage of the player base to handle, as has been described by others in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
